Foothills Sentry March 2022

Page 5 Foothills Sentry March 2022 Circulation … 41,750 Published on the last Tuesday of each month and distributed to residences, businesses, libraries and civic centers. 714-532-4406 Fax: 714-532-6755 foothillssentry.com 1107 E. Chapman Ave., #207 Orange, CA 92866 © Foothills Sentry 2022 Publisher/Editor Anita Bennyhoff 1969-2013 Editor Tina Richards editor@foothillssentry.com Sports Editor Cliff Robbins sportseditor@att.net Graphic Designer Aimee Armstrong graphics@foothillssentry.com Advertising Sales Andie Mills advertising@foothillssentry.com 714-926-9299 Office Manager Kathy Eidson officemanager@foothillssentry. com Not cool at school Dear Editor: I feel it necessary to correct the dangerous misinformation stated in a letter to the editor in the Feb- ruary Sentry . First, tosingleoutBoardmember John Ortega as “still recovering from a bout of COVID” and “maskless” is fear mongering, at best. As readers know, immunity acquired through natural infection is up to 13 times more robust than immunity acquired through vaccination. Facts gathered from two independent U.S. studies and an Israeli study back this fact, and the CDC has acknowledged this. The CDC and New York Times have both admitted cloth masks offer little protection from the spread of COVID. In essence, a COVID-recovered, unmasked John Ortega is safer than any vaccinated, masked attendee at a board meeting. I’d be interested to see the writ- er source just one real world ex- ample where masks have slowed or stopped the spread of COVID. Conversely, with a “cursory inter- net search,” any of us can produce an ocean of real world, side-by- side examples showing commu- nity spread virtually identical in regions with mask mandates (and high compliance) versus regions with no mandates or compliance. As for the members of the pub- lic “who show up every month to speak on the same topic”: For the past 23 months, our state’s COVID policy has been man- dated by one individual, Gover- nor Newsom. All dictates have been absent usual governmental checks and balances due to the “State of Emergency” our gov- ernor declared in March 2020. In addition, our elected state legisla- tors are powerless to enact any meaningful legislation with the current supermajority dominating Sacramento politics. As residents of Orange, Villa Park, Tustin and unincorporated areas, our ONLY outlet for any meaningful change from the state’s draconian poli- cies is our local elected officials. To discourage our neighbors from participating in decisions effecting our children and their livelihoods is undemocratic, and counter to our republic’s values. Rightfully, the writer brought up “an outlandish waste of resourc- es.” Maybe an audit is in order for the $75 million in COVID aid OUSD received. I wonder how much was spent on useless plexi- glass barriers, masks and “wash your hands” decals? Brian Benzie Orange Dear Editor: The self-proclaimed factotum of the city arrives in the first act of the “Barber of Seville” proudly patting himself on the back for all the wonderful things he has done. Proudly and loudly, Figaro pro- claims himself to be all things for all people, and that he will not fail anyone who asks him. Such self-aggrandizement has not been seen until … More than 200 years after Ros- sini’s opera hit the floorboards in Rome, a similar tooting of its own horn is taking place at the dedi- cation of every OUSD Science Center. The tone is the same. The cast this time is the OUSD school board, the OUSD senior man- agement team, the school union leadership and CARE. The latter is the once-every-bond-measure group that attempts to convince the public that further “invest- ment” into the school district is good for the soul. The cast prances the stage re- joicing what a wonderful job that they have done in convincing 55% of those who voted, the min- imal needed, to spend $280 mil- lion to build science centers at the four high schools – two of which were given centers for reasons of equity, not need. In a school dis- trict with a continually shrinking student population, some caused by parents moving their children to better local school districts – one wonders if this “investment” was wise. Our Figaros offer NO thanks to the 55% who were willing to pay their share of the price - or – the 45% who, like myself, feel that they were not listened to, or have had their money confiscated for fruitless self-indulgences for those in charge. Since it is taxpay- ers who will be paying off the sci- ence centers for the next 30 years, a nod to them is in order when thanks are being dispensed. Figaro goes on to comedic ad- ventures after the first act. It’s a sure thing that the 2022 cast is planning new adventures with our hard-earned money. Peter Jacklin Orange Park Acres Districts drift Dear Editor: Thank you for running the map for the open seat in the newly drawn CA-40 Congressional Dis- trict representing our area (Febru- ary). There was an error stating “the new District 40 is home to Yorba Linda’s Young Kim.” She does not reside in Yorba Linda, nor does she reside in the new CA-40. She resides in La Habra. According to her own pub- lished biographies and Ballotpe- dia profile, Young Kim, incum- bent Congresswoman, CA-39, resides in and has been a long- time resident of La Habra, which is now in CA-38. The new CA-38 goes north into LA, which is 47% Democrat and 22% Republican. Congresswoman Kim’s previous CA-39 was 37% Democrat and 33% Republican, which might explain some of her votes. Unadvisedly, the Republican Party of Orange County early- endorsed her for CA-39, knowing full well that decennial redistrict- ing was upon us. Now, Young Kim is disingenuously misleading voters by claiming she is running as “an incumbent” without clari- fying that she is an incumbent for the 39th District, not “the incum- bent” for CA-40. The entrenched party apparatus is complicit in this misrepresentation. While it is legal for her to run outside of her district, voters should reject carpetbagging candidates who “district- shop” based, not on ties to our community, but on the likelihood of winning an election based on party affiliation. CA-40 is 39% Republican and 32% Democrat. Voters deserve better. Deborah Pauly Orange Listen up Dear Editor: I was disappointed to see that the Orange City Council failed — again — to listen to citizens’ comments when it selected the new district Map 121, against citizens’ protests. As Council- member Arianna Barrios stated, the most comments received were the ones from residents request- ing that Districts 4 and 6 remain intact and not be merged. To ig- nore these comments shows utter disregard for our communities by the majority of the city council. Since districts were first estab- lished in 2019, voters in Mabury Ranch (District 4) and Orange Park Acres (District 6) were with- out representation. They were told that they would have the right to elect their own individual repre- sentatives in 2022. We supported district-based city elections, with the expectation that the current district map that clearly separates two distinct and unique parts of Orange, Districts 4 and 6, would be kept separate. Adopting Map 121, which lumps most of East Orange into one mega district, has deprived us of this right. I urge the Orange City Council to reconsider Maps 119, 120, 124 or 127, which re- tain the existing East Orange district boundaries. These two distinct communities of interest have identifiable boundaries that separate our neighborhoods, not to mention our different needs, lifestyles and cultures within the City of Orange. We deserve our own separate representation. Nathan Swanek Mabury Ranch Dear Editor: I watched the Feb. 8 Orange City Council meeting hopeful to hear an attentive response to my request for council to pick Map 119. Was public input even re- viewed? Considered? Not read? Instead, I was dumbfounded to watch Jon Dumitru push for Map 121 that was submitted by “an unnamed individual” and then the majority of the council jumped aboard to support it. It was a 5-2 vote (with Ana Gutierrez and Arianna Barrios voting no). Their justification for supporting it made no sense, nor did the in- explicable boundaries of the new districts. Map 121 now shifts me to the new Mega District 6, which I strongly oppose. After reading the letter (Janu- ary) from the law firm that sued the city in 2019, it appears the city council is heading to litiga- tion again. That letter advised the city that, for specific reasons, only Map 119 complied with the 2019 settlement. I was shocked to learn that fiasco cost Orange taxpayers $620,000! What is as- tonishing is the council is running headfirst toward this brick wall of fiscal waste again. Why not pick a map that com- plies with the law and is over- whelmingly supported by the public? Wasting $620,000 of tax- payer dollars is not an effective strategy or efficient way to con- duct city business, let alone re- spond to federal and state voting rights laws. Why are these five council members so willing to ex- pose the city to another court bat- tle and spend our money? Why wouldn’t it be wiser to adopt Map 119? What are they attempting to slip under the radar? I will encourage everyone to send letters and emails to the city council and tell them to not waste our money. They can avoid spending another $620,000 (or more) by approving Map 119. I’ll be watching. It’s time to mobilize an army of community-minded residents come November. Karen Lockwood Orange Dear Editor: The City of Orange, where I live, appears to be in a panic over SB9, imposing an “urgency” or- dinance to “mitigate” the impacts of the state ordinance. The pro- visions in the emergency imple- mentation ordinance effectively eviscerate the intention of the state law, making most of its pro- visions untenable. This overreac- tion has sprung into play before any citizen of Orange has even proposed any project under the auspices of the new law. I believe more balanced, and perhaps nu- anced, conversation is necessary to navigate some middle ground between the law’s intent and what has so many in the planning de- partment distraught. First off, the law itself prohibits its implementation in an historic district, so that element of the urgency ordinance is redundant. Furthermore, while the law al- lows very small lots to be split, my research has indicated the smallest viable lot for a split is 6,000 square feet, and at that, it’s tight. The interim ordinance sets the minimum eligible lot size at 7,500 square feet. OK, that may be reasonable, if for no other rea- son than the basic economic pru- dence of the undertaking. But the interim ordinance further limits the size of the new units created, and requires one-story-only solu- tions. Remember, this law does not apply to historic districts; there are plenty of neighborhoods with large lots and two-story dwellings, so the one-story re- quirement is arbitrary and unnec- essarily restrictive. Let’s be fair here. There are many reasonable opportunities for the successful, reasonable, and necessary application of the law, which will provide addition- al, inherently affordable dwell- ings for the next generation of households. Please, let’s reason through this to arrive at sensible middle grounds to avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water. Daniel Gehman, AIA People For Housing OC